Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37492176›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in radiology2021

Leveraging Multi-Task Learning to Cope With Poor and Missing Labels of Mammograms.

Mickael Tardy, Diana Mateus

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mickael TardyEcole Centrale de Nantes, LS2N, UMR CNRS 6004, Nantes, France.
Diana MateusEcole Centrale de Nantes, LS2N, UMR CNRS 6004, Nantes, France.
École Centrale de Nantes · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In breast cancer screening, binary classification of mammograms is a common task aiming to determine whether a case is malignant or benign. A Computer-Aided Diagnosis (CADx) system based on a trainable classifier requires clean data and labels coming from a confirmed diagnosis. Unfortunately, such labels are not easy to obtain in clinical practice, since the histopathological reports of biopsy may not be available alongside mammograms, while normal cases may not have an explicit follow-up confirmation. Such ambiguities result either in reducing the number of samples eligible for training or in a label uncertainty that may decrease the performances. In this work, we maximize the number of samples for training relying on multi-task learning. We design a deep-neural-network-based classifier yielding multiple outputs in one forward pass. The predicted classes include binary malignancy, cancer probability estimation, breast density, and image laterality. Since few samples have all classes available and confirmed, we propose to introduce the uncertainty related to the classes as a per-sample weight during training. Such weighting prevents updating the network's parameters when training on uncertain or missing labels. We evaluate our approach on the public INBreast and private datasets, showing statistically significant improvements compared to baseline and independent state-of-the-art approaches. Moreover, we use mammograms from Susan G. Komen Tissue Bank for fine-tuning, further demonstrating the ability to improve the performances in our multi-task learning setup from raw clinical data. We achieved the binary classification performance of

Indexed as

breast cancerclassificationmammographymissing labelsmulti-task learninguncertainty

Identifiers

PMID37492176
PMCPMC10365086
OpenAlexW4205205046

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.